.

Defense Digest

Attorneys Behaving Badly: Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs in Florida Workers’ Compensation Claims

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 3, September 2023

September 1, 2023

by Heather Byrer Carbone

Key Points:

  • Florida workers’ compensation law allows for sanctions.
  • While Judges of Compensation Claims are generally hesitant to award sanctions, there are very limited circumstances where they will do so.

The vast majority of the time, the Florida workers’ compensation bar is a model of professionalism. There are more than 100,000 attorneys in the state of Florida, but the workers’ compensation bar is still small enough that everyone gets to know each other after practicing for a few years. They ask about kids and families. They celebrate weddings and share vacation pictures on social media. They are empathetic and move a deposition if someone is sick. Attorneys on opposite sides are friendly when encountering one another at conferences, seminars, and Inns of Court meetings. And it’s because of this genuine congeniality that most cases move through the system without overly antagonistic litigation. But there are always a few outliers. Judges of Compensation Claims (JCC) occasionally have to struggle with how to handle repeat violators as Florida workers’ compensation law does not have a bad faith clause. So how does a JCC send a message with some teeth when an attorney is unprofessional, overly aggressive, unresponsive, or hostile? Case law from the last few years has given us some guidance on what the First District Court of Appeals has found to be within the jurisdiction of the JCCs.

Florida workers’ compensation law allows for sanctions pursuant to DOAH Rule 60Q-6.125 by striking claims, petitions, defenses, and pleadings, or allowing for the imposition of costs or attorney’s fees. It also allows for other general sanctions that the JCC may deem appropriate. However, traditional F.S.57.105 sanctions that are available in civil cases are not applicable in administrative workers’ compensation claims, unless they are at an appellate level. 

In Mary Hektner v. School Board of Brevard County, OJCC# 13-014654RLD, 1st DCA 1D18-3792, PCA date April 15, 2019, counsel for the claimant had scheduled and noticed the adjuster’s deposition multiple times. A motion for protective order was filed and the employer/carrier’s attorney alleged that the deposition was going forward only to harass, annoy, or embarrass his adjuster and that there were very limited contested issues. The docket indicates extensive litigation and multiple issues appealed to the First District Court of Appeals. Relating to this adjuster’s live deposition, the attorney for the employer/carrier traveled from Orlando to Pompano Beach, stayed overnight in a hotel, and spent extensive time preparing the adjuster for the deposition. Counsel for the employer/carrier emailed claimant’s counsel three times and called multiple times, attempting to confirm that the deposition was going forward. Claimant’s counsel neither responded to the emails nor returned the calls. On the date of the deposition, he failed to appear in person or participate by phone. After the deposition was set to begin, claimant’s counsel’s office advised that the deposition was canceled. The employer/carrier then filed a motion for sanctions. The JCC ultimately found the circumstances warranted sanctions against claimant’s counsel only, and not the claimant. Pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.310, the JCC awarded $3,661.50 for the employer/carrier attorney’s fees and $362.39 for costs. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the decision per curiam. 

In a similar case, Carlos Santiago v. American Airlines, OJCC# 19-029788JIJ 1st DCA 1D20-2931 PCA date April 5, 2022, Premise, a health care provider, filed a motion for sanctions against a claimant’s attorney after the granting of a motion for protective order. The claimant’s attorney (the same attorney from the Hektner case mentioned previously) had filed a motion to compel better responses when asked to produce a contract between the defendant/employer and Premise. The employer/carrier objected on the basis of relevancy and trade secrets privilege, as it related to the workers’ compensation case. The JCC granted Premise’s motion for protective order, finding the contract was not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. The judge entered an order denying the claimant’s motion, and the claimant then filed a motion for rehearing. Premise responded by filing a motion for sanctions based upon F.S. 440.32(3), indicating that there was no good faith argument related to the modification of existing law. Additionally, Premise argued the purpose for the motion for rehearing was to harass or needlessly increase the cost of litigation. A motion for rehearing cannot re-litigate the same issue, unless there is some reversal of existing law. In this case, Premise incurred legal fees in excess of $100,000 defending this issue. The JCC found that claimant’s counsel filed the motion for rehearing for an improper purpose and that an appropriate sanction was to pay an attorney’s fee to Premise’s Health in the amount of $3,358. The district court affirmed the decision per curiam. 

On the other hand, in an evidentiary order on motion for sanctions in the case of Wilmer Hernandez Perez v. Seacrest Services/Travelers Insurance, OJCC #20-016176TAH dated March 2, 2023, the JCC found that it did not have enough evidence to warrant sanctions after the claimant missed four different depositions. The claimant appeared for the hearing on the motion for sanctions and testified that he was unaware of one of the dates of the deposition. Additionally, a Florida provision pursuant to DOAH Rule 60Q-6.125 provides that the party shall be served, but not filed, within 21 days of service of the motion for sanctions. This gives the allegedly offending party the ability to correct the deficiency and avoid the actual filing of the motion for sanctions. In the present case, the employer/carrier did not serve the motion on the claimant 21 days before filing it. The JCC, therefore, denied the motion for sanctions, indicating it was not a violation of the rules and the motion for sanctions was deficient. 

While Judges of Compensation Claims are generally hesitant to award sanctions, these cases show the (very limited) circumstances where they are pushed the edge to do so. The Florida workers’ compensation bar strives to maintain the collegial reputation that it has earned by avoiding the bad behavior outlined in the situations above and hoping that younger attorneys learn from these errors for the future. 

*Heather is a shareholder in our Jacksonville, Florida, office. She can be reached at 904.358.4225 or HBCarbone@mdwcg.com.
 

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 3, September 2023, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.

Jeremy J. Zacharias Elected to the Executive Committee of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society

News

Jeremy J. Zacharias Elected to the Executive Committee of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society

Four Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected 2026 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today Magazine

News

Four Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected 2026 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today Magazine

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case